Herman Cain passes on a New York Times editorial:

It is a sad measure of how distressingly backward this nation has fallen in just a few short months that President W. Mitt Romney now harkens back to the international lawlessness of the Bush/Cheney years by proposing a completely unauthorized, unilateral strike on Syria – and this in response to “evidence” of chemical weapons attacks we find no more compelling than the now throroughly discredited claims of WMD possession made by Bush and Cheney against Saddam Hussein.

Is America really returning to cowboy unilateralism to this extreme?

Mr. Romney’s insistence that Bashar Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people is far from a slam dunk, as many regional media reports dispute the U.S. version of events. What’s more, the White House insistence that it will only launch a limited aerial attack with “no boots on the ground” is laughable on its face, as the history of Republican administrations demonstrates a lust for Middle Eastern blood that will surely lead to an all-out ground assault and an inevitable quagmire as we once again undertake a quixotic pursuit of nation-building in a place where we are neither wanted nor needed.

To the extent that Mr. Assad has been guilty of atrocities, we can’t help but wonder how Mr. Romney might have calmed the situation with a more diplomatic approach to the relationship. His choice of John Bolton as special emmisary to the region has only inflamed anti-U.S. sentiments, and his ill-advised statements of unqualified support for right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu have had the unfortunate effect of stunting useful dialogue with moderates in the region.

We also wish Vice President Paul Ryan would stop making unhelpful pronouncements condemning Al Qaeda when we thought the emotions of post-9/11 hysteria had finally receded under the calm, realism-based leadership of former President Barack H. Obama.

In typical Republican fashion, Mr. Romney gives little credence to international law as he pays wanton disregard to the role of the U.N. Security Council. If Russia and China threaten vetoes, that is no excuse to disdain the process. Rather, it shows Mr. Romney’s need to be a real diplomat for a change and to seek international consensus.

America should have learned from Iraq that we cannot bomb our way to a friendly Middle East. Sadly, the Romney team of Bush re-treads and right-wing fanatics appears to have limitless faith in U.S. power, and simply cannot resist the urge to send missiles flying and bombs dropping in the delusional hope that this will somehow bring calm to the situation.

Oh. I forgot to include Cain’s opening:

In the real world, whether we like it or not, Barack Obama was re-elected in the 2012 presidential election. And in the real world, the one-time hero of the peaceniks is now prepared to attack Syria without UN authorization and quite possibly without authorization from Congress. Some peacenik he turned out to be! The editorial page of New York Times, which is little more than a propaganda rag for the Democratic Party, offered little more than a tepid warning that Obama needs to make his case more convincingly, etc.

 Here is the Times’ “tepid warning”:

There is little doubt that President Obama wants to take military action. As Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday of Mr. Obama, “He believes we need to move. He’s made his decision. Now it’s up to the Congress of the United States to join him in affirming the international norm with respect to enforcement against the use of chemical weapons.” …

It is unfortunate that Mr. Obama, who has been thoughtful and cautious about putting America into the Syrian conflict, has created a political situation in which his credibility could be challenged. He did that by publicly declaring that the use of chemical weapons would cross a red line that would result in an American response. Regardless, he should have long ago put in place, with our allies and partners, a plan for international action — starting with tough sanctions — if Mr. Assad used chemical weapons. It is alarming that Mr. Obama did not.

Remember when the news media spoke truth to power and challenged presidents Democratic and Republican? I remember half of that. Apparently we are now in the empty-suit era of presidents, similar to Wisconsin’s being without U.S. Senators between 1993 and 2010, with a president who does either (1) nothing or (2) the wrong thing.

Or, as Kevin’s Political Rantings on Facebook put it:

To everyone who voted because they were angered by a dog on the roof of a car, terrified of Big Bird getting his federal funds cut, or duped into thinking that binders full of women were an actual thing:

This Syria mess is on you. Thanks a lot.